DOCSLIB.ORG

Bioprospecting: Issues and Policy Considerations

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Bioprospecting: Issues and Policy Considerations BIOPROSPECTING: ISSUES AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS PETER G. PAN Researcher Report No. 1, 2006 Legislative Reference Bureau State Capitol Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 http://www.hawaii.gov/lrb/ This report has been cataloged as follows: Pan, Peter G. Bioprospecting: issues and policy considerations. Honolulu, HI: Legislative Reference Bureau, January 2006. 1. Germplasm resources. KFH421.5.L35 A25 06-1 FOREWORD This report was undertaken in response to House Concurrent Resolution No. 146, H.D. 1, 2005. The Bureau has been requested to "conduct a study on the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from research, indigenous knowledge, intellectual property, or application of biological resources that are public natural resources held in trust by the State for the benefit of the people." This study examines the nature of bioprospecting and certain problematic issues surrounding the use of biological resources. These include certain assumptions that may not necessarily be correct or relevant. The study further discusses the issue of the public land trust and benefit sharing with indigenous knowledge holders. We also examine several models of bioprospecting guidelines for the Legislature's consideration. Ken H. Takayama Acting Director January 2006 iii FACT SHEET Bioprospecting involves searching for, collecting, and deriving genetic material from samples of biodiversity that can be used in commercialized pharmaceutical, agricultural, industrial, or chemical processing end products. By the early 1990s, objections to uncompensated bioprospecting that does not share benefits with the source country became contentious. Since 1991, the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) has embodied the principles of compensated bioprospecting globally. Compensated bioprospecting involves obtaining prior informed consent from the source country, sharing benefits, and promoting sustainable use of biodiversity. Where indigenous knowledge holders are involved, efforts are made to recognize and protect their rights. Benefits can take various forms, from royalties to negotiated advance and milestone payments, capacity building, facilities and equipment transfer, personnel training, sharing of research, and other forms. The United States (and six other nations) are not parties to the CBD, which is an international protocol meant to apply to sovereign nations, not to individual cities, provinces, or states. The CBD encourages parties to enact national bioprospecting legislation. The United States has not done so. Neither has any individual state. Without participation in the CBD and in the absence of national and state laws, bioprospecting is not regulated in Hawaii. The CBD is difficult to enforce and relies on voluntary compliance. However, it provides guidelines for implementing the principles of prior informed consent, benefit sharing, and promotion of sustainable use of biodiversity. The Legislature is faced with the decision whether to regulate bioprospecting in Hawaii and who, including native Hawaiians, should share in the benefits. At present, it is the opinion of the Attorney General that the State does not automatically hold title to the genetic material derived from biodiversity taken from public lands. The Attorney General further opines that, at present, revenues from the sale of that genetic material do not qualify for transfer into the Ceded Lands Trust Account to be distributed by the Office of Hawaiian Affairs for the benefit of native Hawaiians. Thus, if the Legislature desires to regulate bioprospecting, it needs to ensure that the State retains title to share in benefits. It must also decide whether native Hawaiians should share in benefits, how, and how much. It does not make sense to implement actual bioprospecting regulation without first setting policy guidelines. It is important that all stakeholders have the opportunity to be heard and help shape policy through the political process. After the Legislature determines overall policy, the actual implementation of a regulatory framework may fall to a bioprospecting working group composed of representatives of stakeholder groups, including state agencies, to work out the details, guided by legislative policy. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Page FOREWORD........................................................................................................................ iii FACT SHEET ...................................................................................................................... iv 1. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................... 1 H.C.R. No. 146, H.D. 1.............................................................................................. 1 Organization of the Study .......................................................................................... 2 2. BIOPROSPECTING ISSUES................................................................................. 3 Bioprospecting ........................................................................................................... 3 Fear: Lack of Conservation Effort and Unsustainable Use of Biodiversity............................................................................................................. 4 Bioprospecting vs. Final Commercial Manufacture ......................................... 4 Bioprospecting Generally Requires Minimal Sample Quantities..................... 5 Distinction between Pharmaceutical Bioprospecting and Phytomedicine................................................................................................ 6 Bioprospecting Generally Focuses on Genetic Material .................................. 7 Fear: Bioprospecting is Unnatural ............................................................................ 8 Bioprospecting Does Not Equal Biotechnology............................................... 9 Fear: Lack of Compensation or Benefit Sharing ...................................................... 10 Evolution of Demand for Compensation .......................................................... 10 The Willow Bark and Aspirin........................................................................... 10 Why No Prior Demand for Sustainable Use..................................................... 11 Why Compensation Demanded ........................................................................ 11 Convention on Biological Diversity ................................................................. 12 Types of Benefits or Compensation.................................................................. 12 Negotiated Bioprospecting Agreements ........................................................... 14 Prior Informed Consent..................................................................................... 14 Milestone Payments.......................................................................................... 15 Bioprospecting Does Not Necessarily Achieve Large or Quick Profits............................................................................................................. 15 Capacity Building Supports Development........................................................ 16 Fear: Traditional Cultural Practices Threatened or Limited..................................... 17 Three Approaches to Bioprospecting................................................................ 17 Intellectual Property Rights .............................................................................. 18 National Pride at Stake............................................................................................... 21 v Page 3. MODELS AND GUIDELINES FOR REGULATION......................................... 23 Approaches to Bioprospecting Regulation ................................................................ 23 Convention on Biological Diversity .......................................................................... 23 Parties to the CBD ............................................................................................ 24 Objectives of the CBD...................................................................................... 24 Conservation and Sustainable Use of Biodiversity........................................... 25 Identification and Monitoring of Biodiversity.................................................. 25 In-Situ and Ex-Situ Conservation ..................................................................... 25 Sustainable Use................................................................................................. 27 Incentives, Training Programs, and Public Education...................................... 27 Exchange of Information .................................................................................. 27 Technical and Scientific Cooperation for Conservation and Sustainable Use.............................................................................................. 28 Regulation of Bioprospecting ........................................................................... 28 Environmental Impact Assessments ................................................................. 28 Sovereign Rights and National Legislation ...................................................... 28 Access to and Transfer of Technology ............................................................. 29 Patents and Intellectual Property Rights........................................................... 29 International Intellectual Property Rights Regime ..........................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Realized Benefits from Bioprospecting in the Wake of the Convention on Biological Diversity
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Washington University St. Louis: Open Scholarship Washington University Journal of Law & Policy Volume 47 Intellectual Property: From Biodiversity to Technical Standards 2015 The Realized Benefits from Bioprospecting in the Wake of the Convention on Biological Diversity James S. Miller Missouri Botanical Garden Follow this and additional works at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_journal_law_policy Part of the Ecology and Evolutionary Biology Commons, Environmental Law Commons, and the Plant Sciences Commons Recommended Citation James S. Miller, The Realized Benefits from Bioprospecting in the Wake of the Convention on Biological Diversity, 47 WASH. U. J. L. & POL’Y 051 (2015), https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_journal_law_policy/vol47/iss1/10 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School at Washington University Open Scholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Washington University Journal of Law & Policy by an authorized administrator of Washington University Open Scholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Realized Benefits from Bioprospecting in the Wake of the Convention on Biological Diversity James S. Miller MISSOURI BOTANICAL GARDEN In the mid-1980s, the convergence of several technological advances led to a serious resurgence of interest in surveying plant species for drug development. The emergence of methods to miniaturize in-vitro bioassays (a test used to quantify the biological effect of a chemical compound or extract against a specific disease target) run the bioassays with robotic equipment, and isolate and identify active compounds with a speed and precision never before possible.
    [Show full text]
  • Developing Bioprospecting Strategies for Bioplastics Through the Large-Scale Mining of Microbial Genomes
    fmicb-12-697309 July 6, 2021 Time: 18:39 # 1 ORIGINAL RESEARCH published: 12 July 2021 doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2021.697309 Developing Bioprospecting Strategies for Bioplastics Through the Large-Scale Mining of Microbial Genomes Paton Vuong1, Daniel J. Lim2, Daniel V. Murphy1, Michael J. Wise3,4, Andrew S. Whiteley5 and Parwinder Kaur1* 1 UWA School of Agriculture and Environment, The University of Western Australia, Perth, WA, Australia, 2 Department of Physics and Astronomy, Curtin University, Perth, WA, Australia, 3 School of Physics, Mathematics and Computing, The University of Western Australia, Perth, WA, Australia, 4 Marshall Centre for Infectious Disease Research and Training, University of Western Australia, Perth, WA, Australia, 5 Centre for Environment and Life Sciences, CSIRO, Floreat, WA, Australia The accumulation of petroleum-based plastic waste has become a major issue for the environment. A sustainable and biodegradable solution can be found in Polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHAs), a microbially produced biopolymer. An analysis of the global phylogenetic and ecological distribution of potential PHA producing bacteria and Edited by: archaea was carried out by mining a global genome repository for PHA synthase (PhaC), Obulisamy Parthiba Karthikeyan, University of Houston, United States a key enzyme involved in PHA biosynthesis. Bacteria from the phylum Actinobacteria Reviewed by: were found to contain the PhaC Class II genotype which produces medium-chain Rajesh K. Sani, length PHAs, a physiology until now only found within a few Pseudomonas species. South Dakota School of Mines Further, several PhaC genotypes were discovered within Thaumarchaeota, an archaeal and Technology, United States Vijay Kumar, phylum with poly-extremophiles and the ability to efficiently use CO2 as a carbon Institute of Himalayan Bioresource source, a significant ecological group which have thus far been little studied for PHA Technology (CSIR), India production.
    [Show full text]
  • Understanding Bioprospecting: Can Indigenous Populations Benefit from the Search for Pharmaceuticals in Areas of High Biodiversity
    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Environmental Studies Undergraduate Student Theses Environmental Studies Program Spring 5-2011 Understanding Bioprospecting: Can Indigenous Populations Benefit from the Search for Pharmaceuticals in Areas of High Biodiversity Emily Schwindt University of Nebraska-Lincoln Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/envstudtheses Part of the Agricultural and Resource Economics Commons, Biological and Physical Anthropology Commons, Environmental Health and Protection Commons, Ethnic Studies Commons, Natural Resource Economics Commons, Natural Resources and Conservation Commons, Natural Resources Management and Policy Commons, Other Environmental Sciences Commons, Place and Environment Commons, and the Sustainability Commons Disclaimer: The following thesis was produced in the Environmental Studies Program as a student senior capstone project. Schwindt, Emily, "Understanding Bioprospecting: Can Indigenous Populations Benefit from the Search for Pharmaceuticals in Areas of High Biodiversity" (2011). Environmental Studies Undergraduate Student Theses. 46. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/envstudtheses/46 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Environmental Studies Program at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Environmental Studies Undergraduate Student Theses by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. UNDERSTANDING BIOPROSPECTING:
    [Show full text]
  • NYU School of Law Outline: Trademarks, Barton Beebe
    NYU School of Law Outline: Trademarks, Barton Beebe Will Frank (Class of 2011) Fall Semester, 2009 Contents 1 Introduction to Trademark and Unfair Competition Law 3 1.1 Sources and Nature of Rights . 4 1.2 The Nature of Unfair Competition Law . 4 1.3 Purposes of Trademark Law . 4 1.4 The Lanham Act . 5 2 Distinctiveness 6 2.1 The Spectrum of Distinctiveness . 7 2.2 Descriptiveness and Secondary Meaning . 7 2.3 Generic Terms . 8 2.4 Distinctiveness of Nonverbal Identifiers (Logos, Packages, Prod- uct Design, Colors) . 9 2.4.1 Different Tests/Standards? . 9 2.4.2 Expanding the Types of Nonverbal Marks . 9 2.4.3 The Design/Packaging Distinction . 10 2.4.4 Trade Dress Protection After Wal-Mart . 10 2.5 The Edge of Protection: Subject Matter Exclusions? . 12 2.5.1 Exotic Source-Identifiers . 12 2.6 Review . 12 3 Functionality 13 3.1 The Concept . 14 3.2 The Scope of the Doctrine . 15 3.3 The Modern Approach . 15 3.4 Post-TrafFix Devices Applications . 17 4 Use 18 4.1 As a Jurisdictional Prerequisite . 18 4.2 As a Prerequisite for Acquiring Rights . 18 4.2.1 Actual Use . 18 4.2.2 Constructive Use . 19 1 4.3 \Surrogate" Uses . 20 4.3.1 By Affiliates . 20 4.4 The Public as Surrogate . 20 4.5 Loss of Rights . 21 4.5.1 Abandonment Through Non-Use . 21 4.5.2 Abandonment Through Failure to Control Use . 21 5 Registration 22 5.1 The Registration Process . 22 5.1.1 Overview .
    [Show full text]
  • Crop Genetic Resources Bulletin Number 2 an Economic Appraisal May 2005 Kelly Day Rubenstein, Paul Heisey, Robbin Shoemaker, John Sullivan, and George Frisvold
    A Report from the Economic Research Service United States Department www.ers.usda.gov of Agriculture Economic Information Crop Genetic Resources Bulletin Number 2 An Economic Appraisal May 2005 Kelly Day Rubenstein, Paul Heisey, Robbin Shoemaker, John Sullivan, and George Frisvold Abstract: Crop genetic resources are the basis of agricultural production, and significant economic benefits have resulted from their conservation and use. However, crop genetic resources are largely public goods, so private incentives for genetic resource conservation may fall short of achieving public objectives. Within the U.S. germplasm system, certain crop collec- tions lack sufficient diversity to reduce vulnerability to pests and diseases. Many such genetic resources lie outside the United States. This report examines the role of genetic resources, genetic diversity, and efforts to value genetic resources. The report also evaluates economic and institutional fac- tors influencing the flow of genetic resources, including international agree- ments, and their significance for agricultural research and development in the United States. Keywords: Genetic resources, genetic diversity, germplasm, R&D, interna- tional transfer of genetic resources, in situ conservation, ex situ conserva- tion, gene banks, intellectual property. Acknowledgments: The authors wish to thank Allan Stoner, Henry Shands, and Peter Bretting for their thoughtful reviews and their valuable comments. Thanks for reviews above and beyond the call of duty belong to June Blalock, whose patience and insight were critical to the production of this report. We also thank Joe Cooper who reviewed portions of the manuscripts. Keith Wiebe provided helpful guidance in the development of the final draft. We thank Dale Simms for his excellent editorial work and Susan DeGeorge for her help with graphics and layout.
    [Show full text]
  • Protecting Folklore Under Modern Intellectual Property Regimes
    American University Law Review Volume 48 | Issue 4 Article 2 1999 Protecting Folklore Under Modern Intellectual Property Regimes: A Reappraisal of the Tensions Between Individual and Communal Rights in Africa and the United States Paul Kuruk Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/aulr Part of the Intellectual Property Commons, and the International Law Commons Recommended Citation Kuruk, Paul. “ Protecting Folklore Under Modern Intellectual Property Regimes: A Reappraisal of the Tensions Between Individual and Communal Rights in Africa and the United States.” American University Law Review 48, no.4 (April, 1999): 769-843. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Washington College of Law Journals & Law Reviews at Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in American University Law Review by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Protecting Folklore Under Modern Intellectual Property Regimes: A Reappraisal of the Tensions Between Individual and Communal Rights in Africa and the United States Keywords Folklore, Intellectual Property Law, Regional Arrangements This article is available in American University Law Review: http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/aulr/vol48/iss4/2 PROTECTING FOLKLORE UNDER MODERN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY REGIMES: A REAPPRAISAL OF THE TENSIONS BETWEEN INDIVIDUAL AND COMMUNAL RIGHTS IN AFRICA AND THE UNITED STATES * PAUL KURUK TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction.............................................................................................. I. Folklore Under Traditional Systems........................................ 776 A. Nature of Folklore ............................................................. 776 B. Protection Under Customary Law .................................... 780 1. Social groups and rights in folklore ...........................
    [Show full text]
  • Basics Track: Franchisor's Intellectual Property and How to Protect It
    International Franchise Association 52nd Annual Legal Symposium May 5-7, 2019 Washington, DC Basics Track: Franchisor’s Intellectual Property and How to Protect It Christopher Kelly Partner, Wiley Rein LLP Washington, D.C. Vincent Frantz Attorney, Cheng Cohen LLC Chicago, Illinois 1 Table of Contents I. The Four Primary Types of Intellectual Property ....................................................... 4 A. Trademarks ........................................................................................................... 4 1. Selecting a Protectable Mark ............................................................................. 5 2. Common Law Trademarks ................................................................................. 7 3. Domestic Trademark Registration ...................................................................... 8 4. International Trademark Protection .................................................................. 11 5. Proper Use of Trademarks ............................................................................... 12 6. Enforcement of Rights/Trademark Infringement ............................................... 13 B. Trade Secrets ...................................................................................................... 14 1. Elements of a Trade Secret.............................................................................. 15 2. Misappropriation of Trade Secrets ................................................................... 16 3. Federal Protection for Trade Secrets
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction to Trademark Law and Practice
    WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ORGANIZATION INTRODUCTION TO TRADEMARK LAW & PRACTICE THE BASIC CONCEPTS A WIPO TRAINING MANUAL GENEVA 1993 (Second Edition) ( ( WIPO PUBLICATION No 653 (El ISBN 92-805-0167-4 WIPO 1993 PREFACE The present publication is the second edition of a volume of the same title that was published by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) in 1987 and reprinted in 1990. The first edition was written by Mr. Douglas Myall, former Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks, United Kingdom. The present revised edition of the publication has been prepared by Mr. Gerd Kunze, Vevey, Switzerland, and reflects his extensive expertise and experience in the administration of the trademark operations of a large international corporation, Nestle S. A., as well as his intensive involvement, as a leading representative of several international non-governmental organizations, in international meetings convened by WIPO. This publication is intended to provide a practical introduction to trademark administration for those with little or no experience of the subject but who may have to deal with it in an official or business capacity. Throughout the text, the reader is invited to answer questions relating to the text. Those questions are numbered to correspond to the answers that are given, with a short commentary, in Appendix I. Arpad Bogsch Director General World Intellectual Property Organization February 1993 ( ( LIST OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1. TRADEMARKS AND OTHER SIGNS: A GENERAL SURVEY 7 1.1 Use of trademarks in commerce . 9 1.2 What is a trademark?. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 9 1.3 Need for legal protection .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 10 1.4 How can a trademark be protected? .
    [Show full text]
  • Biodiversity Conservation: How Can the Regulation of Bioprospecting
    N°06/13 JUNE 2013 | BIODIVERSITY Biodiversity conservation: How can the regulation of bioprospecting under the Nagoya Protocol make a difference? Claudio Chiarolla, Renaud Lapeyre, Romain Pirard (IDDRI) THE REGULATION OF BIOPROSPECTING: WHAT IS IT? AND WHY IS IT IMPORTANT? The need to protect biodiversity and to promote fairness in the use of genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge has engendered one of the most contentious debates of the 21st century between devel- oped and developing countries. This debate has fundamental implications for the way in which basic and applied research on genetic resources and biodiversity is conducted and its results are made available between and within peoples and societies. Therefore, the regulation of bioprospecting –i.e. “the search for plant and animal species from which medicinal drugs and other commercially valuable compounds can be obtained”– not only tells stories about biodiversity conservation, but also about food security, global health, intellectual property, indigenous peoples, equity, justice and human rights. NEW PERSPECTIVES: BIOPROSPECTING CONTRACTS AS MARKET- BASED INSTRUMENTS In a context of financial constraint, MBIs are seen as a potential tool to help foster biodiversity conservation. As private contracts between two (or more) parties (theoretically Coasean agreements), bioprospecting contracts could be more efficient than command-and-control regulations aimed at biodiversity conservation. Aiming to regulate bioprospecting, the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and Benefit Shar- ing (ABS), adopted in 2010, should help to stop the misappropriation This article is based on research that has of genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge (known as received a financial support from the French ‘biopiracy’), while providing legal certainty for public and private users government in the framework of the programme of such resources.
    [Show full text]
  • ANNEX 2 Provisions of the Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property (1967) Referred to in the TRIPS Agreement* TABLE
    ANNEX 2 Provisions of the Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property (1967) referred to in the TRIPS Agreement TABLE OF CONTENTS Article 1 Establishment of the Union; Scope of Industrial Property Article 2 National Treatment for Nationals of Countries of the Union Article 3 Same Treatment for Certain Categories of Persons as for Nationals of Countries of the Union Article 4 A to I. Patents, Utility Models, Industrial Designs, Marks, Inventors’ Certificates: Right of Priority - G. Patents: Division of the Application Article 4bis Patents: Independence of Patents Obtained for the Same Invention in Different Countries Article 4ter Patents: Mention of the Inventor in the Patent Article 4quater Patents: Patentability in Case of Restrictions of Sale by Law Article 5 A. Patents: Importation of Articles; Failure to Work or Insufficient Working; Compulsory Licences. B. Industrial Designs: Failure to Work; Importation of Articles C. Marks: Failure to Use; Different Forms; Use by Co-proprietors D. Patents, Utility Models, Marks, Industrial Designs: Marking Article 5bis All Industrial Property Rights: Period of Grace for the Payment of Fees for the Maintenance of Rights; Patents: Restoration Article 5ter Patents: Patented Devices Forming Part of Vessels, Aircraft, or Land Vehicles [WTO Secretariat note] The provisions reproduced herein are referred to in Article 2.1 and in other provisions of the TRIPS Agreement. This volume uses the titles that the International Bureau of WIPO has given to them to facilitate their identification. The Table of Contents is added for the convenience of the reader. Neither the titles nor the Table of Contents appear in the signed (French) text.
    [Show full text]
  • International Trademark Association (INTA) Business Name/Trademark Differences Information
    International Trademark Association (INTA) Business Name/Trademark Differences Information FAQs Is a business name the same as a trademark? No. What is the difference between a business name and a trademark? A business name is the name under which a company does business. A trademark is any word, symbol, or design that identifies and distinguishes the source of one party’s goods or services from those of others. How do I find out if I can use my business name for my business or company? It is recommended that you conduct a so-called clearance search before starting use of your business name. Clearance searches are used to verify whether there are any potentially similar or conflicting prior rights in the marketplace. There are databases available for clearance searches (some publicly accessible, some for a fee) to assess if another person/business is using a name or mark similar to your business name, for similar products or services. If I record my business name with the Secretary of State, do I have the right to use it in connection with my business? Not necessarily. Registering a business name with the Secretary of State is required to be able to do business under a particular name within the state, but this registration does not give any assurance that the registered business name is not in conflict with the trademark rights of other parties. Other parties may already be using similar names or trademarks in the marketplace which may take precedence over your rights to use a particular business name. For this reason, it is recommended that you conduct clearance searches before registering and using a business name.
    [Show full text]
  • Intellectual Property Rights and Native American Tribes Richard A
    American Indian Law Review Volume 20 | Number 1 1-1-1995 Intellectual Property Rights and Native American Tribes Richard A. Guest Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.ou.edu/ailr Part of the Indian and Aboriginal Law Commons, and the Intellectual Property Law Commons Recommended Citation Richard A. Guest, Intellectual Property Rights and Native American Tribes, 20 Am. Indian L. Rev. 111 (1995), https://digitalcommons.law.ou.edu/ailr/vol20/iss1/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by University of Oklahoma College of Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in American Indian Law Review by an authorized editor of University of Oklahoma College of Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS AND NATIVE AMERICAN TRIBES Richard A. Guest* [AIll Property is Theft.' Introduction In recent years, several Native American tribes have begun a journey into the unfamiliar terrain of intellectual property rights as a means to assert their self-determination, secure economic independence, and protect their cultural identities. Although "ideas about property have played a central role in shaping the American legal order,"2 in the prevailing legal literature of intellectual property law in the United States, the protection of Native American intellectual property rights is rarely an issue of consideration. Suzan Shown Harjo, in her article, Native Peoples' Cultural and Human Rights: An Unfinished Agenda, writes: "The cultural and intellectual property rights of Native Peoples are worthy of being addressed during this time of increased appropriation of Native national names, religious symbology, and cultural images."3 In contrast, within the realm of international law, the topic of intellectual property is a high priority, uniting the concerns for self-determination and economic independence.
    [Show full text]